Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.55 seconds)

Mahan Traders Through Sh. Jaswant Singh ... vs Shri Amar Singh on 14 November, 2006

23. The observation of the Arbitral Tribunal that the dispute about dissolution of the firm was not before the designate of the Chief Justice when the petition under Section 11(6) was decided is also not correct as an application for arbitration invoking arbitration and appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Section 11 would be an application for dissolution of the firm as was held by the Division Bench of this Court in Mulkh Raj (supra). A partnership which is at will which is not disputed by the parties, an application for arbitration invoking arbitration and appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Section 11 would be an application for dissolution of the firm or for having share by the partners from the assets of the firm. When there is no mutual trust between the parties and the relationship has become so strained that it is impossible to carry on the businesses by the partners, it will be open to claim dissolution and such a question could be adjudicated by the Arbitrator. The scope of reference must be looked from the angle as to what was the is spirit behind the reference to the arbitration and whether the idea was to settle all the disputes between the parties and not to confine the same to any one or the other issue arising their under as was held by the Apex Court in V.H. Patel & Company.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 4 - A Kumar - Full Document

Ess Vee Traders And Ors. vs Ambuja Cement Rajasthan Limited on 3 July, 2006

It must be emphasized that the present case is not a dispute inter se the partners, therefore, the exception carved out under Section 69(3)(a) is not attracted and, therefore, the recent decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mulakh Raj (Shri) v. Smt. Shashi Rani would have no application inasmuch as that case pertains to the exception carved out in Section 69(3)(a) pertaining to disputes inter se the partners qua dissolution of the firm.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 8 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

For The vs Ivan E. John & Ors. Reported In A.I.R. ... on 25 March, 2011

In this connection, the decision in the case of Mulakh Raj vs. Smt. Shashi Rani & anr. reported in A.I.R. 2005 Delhi 374 may be referred to. In that case the suit was filed by a partner against the other partners of an unregistered firm with a prayer for appointment of an arbitrator. The court was of the opinion that the said prayer amounted to a suit for dissolution of firm or for having shares from the assets of the firm and that the said suit was saved in view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - T K Gupta - Full Document
1